Your attention is now invited to some critical remarks on the distinctions usually observed in the use of verbs.  Let us carefully examine the meaning of these three kinds and see if there is any occasion for such a division; if they have any foundation in truth, or application in the correct use of language.  We will follow the arrangements adopted by the most popular grammars.

“A verb active expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon; as, to love, I love Penelope.”  A very excellent definition, indeed!  Had grammarians stopped here, their works would have been understood, and proved of some service in the study of language.  But when they diverge from this bright spot in the consideration of verbs—­this oasis in the midst of a desert—­they soon become lost in the surrounding darkness of conjecture, and follow each their own dim light, to hit on a random track, which to follow in the pursuit of their object.

We give our most hearty assent to the above definition of a verb.  It expresses action, which necessarily implies an actor, and an object influenced by the action.  In our estimation it matters not whether the object on which the action terminates is expressed or understood.  If I love, I must love some object; either my neighbor, my enemy, my family, myself, or something else.  In either case the action is the same, tho the objects may be different; and it is regarded, on all hands, as an active verb.  Hence when the object on which the action terminates is not expressed, it is necessarily understood.  All language is, in this respect, more or less eliptical, which adds much to its richness and brevity.

Active verbs, we are told, are divided into transitive and intransitive.  Mr. Murray does not exactly approve of this distinction, but prefers to class the intransitive and neuter together.  Others, aware of the fallacy of attempting to make children conceive any thing like neutrality in the verbs, run, fly, walk, live, &c., have preferred to mark the distinction and call them intransitive; because, say they, they do not terminate on any object expressed.

A transitive verb “expresses an action which passes from the agent to the object; as, Caesar conquered Pompey.”  To this definition we can not consent.  It attempts a distinction where there is none.  It is not true in principle, and can not be adopted in practice.

“Caesar conquered Pompey.”  Did the act of conquering pass transitively over from Caesar to Pompey?  They might not have seen each other during the whole battle, nor been within many miles of each other.  They, each of them, stood at the head of their armies, and alike gave orders to their subordinate officers, and they again to their inferiors, and so down, each man contending valiantly for victory, till, at last, the fate of the day sealed the downfall of Pompey, and placed the crown of triumph on the head of Caesar.  The expression is a correct one, but the action expressed by the verb “conquered,” is not transitive, as that term is understood.  A whole train of causes was put in operation which finally terminated in the defeat of one, and the conquest of the other.